Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Alternately we could emphasize the errors, the lies, the stubborn refusal to accept facts that stand up, slap you on the ass and call you Shirley as signs that maybe, just maybe, that Little Johnny really is the only one in step....

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

What are you suggesting—the sun does not revolve around the earth—how is it that a man of your knowledge thinks that the sun revolves around the earth—I am dumbfounded.

This is remarkably dishonest, even for you.

You are equivocating again...

I have asked you, several times whether you, personally, believe in a terracentric of a heliocentric solar system; the closest you have come to answering was once to say that you believed "as they believed", "they" being the bronze-age superstitionists that bragged of their 'god' making the "sun stand still". "They" believed that a flat earth was held up by pillars, and that the stars were contained in a vault above (which helps explain some of the apocalyptic imagery you swallow so uncritically).

Now you appear to be retracting that silly statement.

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

God in his wisdom would never design it that way...

OK. So you, personally, believe that the earth rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Now, be so kind as to explain what mechanical processes would have to take place for the "sun to stand still in the sky".

...whenever you are ready...

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

---you are grossly mistaken, actually deluded.
So where did you acquire that exceedingly erroneous knowledge?

Your "infallible perfect understanding" is leading you to make more demonstrably false statements. Is uncivil equivocation so important to you?

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 1,985

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

As I have said, YHVH decides the time for me to begin—I have learnt to wait and not to
preempt his timing.

So you will like the rest, disregard what I have said, OR wait. I will know when the time comes.

Oh, so it was option 3. You never had any intention of providing proof. Proof that, according to the book you believe in, should already be readily apparent.

I will, as would any other sane person, disregard any and all unsupported assertions you have made, or will make in the future. If you think this is wrong, you can explain to me why you reject the unsupported assertions of all the other religions in the world, and show me why I should accept yours without disregarding your own logic.
What you are asking me to do is to wait to see proof that you already have, but you don't want to show me, until a time yet to be specified in the future, that only you will know about, when that proof will be too late to benefit me because I will already have been judged and damned by your all-loving god, who will be perfectly au fait with your having deliberately refused to help me repent in time, when both of you could have done so with ease.

What are you suggesting—the sun does not revolve around the earth—how is it that a man of your knowledge thinks that the sun revolves around the earth—I am dumbfounded.

God in his wisdom would never design it that way---you are grossly mistaken, actually deluded.
So where did you acquire that exceedingly erroneous knowledge?

He was referencing the fact that the Bible describes a geocentric, flat Earth universe. You just contradicted the Bible AGAIN by admitting that a geocentric model, as described in the Bible, is flawed.

Geocentric is suggested in several Biblical passages, depending on how these passages are interpreted. In order of appearance, the verses are:

Joshua 10:12-13: On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon." So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

1 Chronicles 16:30: Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

Psalm 19:6: It [the sun] rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is hidden from its heat.

Psalm 93:1: The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved.

Psalm 96:10: Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.

Psalm 104:5: (Bless the LORD . . .) Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.

Ecclesiastes 1:5: The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
It is difficult to explain these as obvious metaphors, when for a couple of thousand years, up until the beginnings of modern science, no one commented on their being metaphors. Everyone believed that the Sun went around a stationary Earth, and thought that that was what the Bible was saying.

The belief that the Bible dictated a geocentric model was the reason the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo or his defense of a heliocentric model.

What are you suggesting—the sun does not revolve around the earth—how is it that a man of your knowledge thinks that the sun revolves around the earth—I am dumbfounded.

God in his wisdom would never design it that way---you are grossly mistaken, actually deluded.
So where did you acquire that exceedingly erroneous knowledge?

I am surprised that the immortal one needs to ask such questions about his fairy book since he loves to quote from that same fairy book.

__________________08 JAN 2018 > Trump says that he is "Like, Really Smart" and that he is "a Very Stable Genius".
11 JAN 2018 > During an Oval Office meeting, Trump asks "“Why are we having all these people from ****hole countries come here?”"

I am surprised that the immortal one needs to ask such questions about his fairy book since he loves to quote from that same fairy book.

In all fairness, second grade Sunday school classes almost never delve into the Bible's Geocentric model. I mean, we're talking about a guy who supposedly read the entire Bible and missed the construction of the second temple.

In all fairness, second grade Sunday school classes almost never delve into the Bible's Geocentric model. I mean, we're talking about a guy who supposedly read the entire Bible and missed the construction of the second temple.

But what about the stars that are to fall out of the sky on to earth in the last days.

Does PB know how BIG stars are, compared to the Earth? Does he know that the Sun is a star? That's something the Bible doesn't tell us.

I have asked you, several times whether you, personally, believe in a terracentric of a heliocentric solar system; the closest you have come to answering was once to say that you believed "as they believed", "they" being the bronze-age superstitionists that bragged of their 'god' making the "sun stand still". "They" believed that a flat earth was held up by pillars, and that the stars were contained in a vault above (which helps explain some of the apocalyptic imagery you swallow so uncritically).

Now you appear to be retracting that silly statement.

OK. So you, personally, believe that the earth rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

Now, be so kind as to explain what mechanical processes would have to take place for the "sun to stand still in the sky".

...whenever you are ready...

Your "infallible perfect understanding" is leading you to make more demonstrably false statements. Is uncivil equivocation so important to you?

It was always believed that the earth was flat—so at the time the sun stood still they believed that to be the case.
That does not nullify the fact that the shadow stood still it was seen as the sun stood still—I thought that would be evident to you.

The other account when the shadow went back ten steps, it was considered that the sun went backwards.

YHVH who is the Creator would with ease change the orbit of the earth.

Oh, so it was option 3. You never had any intention of providing proof. Proof that, according to the book you believe in, should already be readily apparent.

I will, as would any other sane person, disregard any and all unsupported assertions you have made, or will make in the future. If you think this is wrong, you can explain to me why you reject the unsupported assertions of all the other religions in the world, and show me why I should accept yours without disregarding your own logic.
What you are asking me to do is to wait to see proof that you already have, but you don't want to show me, until a time yet to be specified in the future, that only you will know about, when that proof will be too late to benefit me because I will already have been judged and damned by your all-loving god, who will be perfectly au fait with your having deliberately refused to help me repent in time, when both of you could have done so with ease.

Does it seem likely to you that I would accept this proposition?

You want to see external evidence which at this time is on hold. But when that evidence is demonstrated then you may not want to repent, or may not be in a position to repent.

__________________Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.

It was always believed that the earth was flat—so at the time the sun stood still they believed that to be the case.
That does not nullify the fact that the shadow stood still it was seen as the sun stood still—I thought that would be evident to you.

The other account when the shadow went back ten steps, it was considered that the sun went backwards.

YHVH who is the Creator would with ease change the orbit of the earth.

Of all the possible sources for information on the heliocentric model of the solar system, you picked an anti-vax site where it is mentioned only in passing before moving on to another topic...

OooooK Then.

You've told us more about your research methodology than I think you intended. This does however explain how you managed to quote the same verse in different translations to try and make opposing points. Keyword searching is not the same thing as researching Paul.

I highly recommend you read The Craft of Research. Your local library most likely has a copy. While I found it to be largely review when I read it in college, I had a LOT of perfectly intelligent classmates who found it revolutionary and whose research skills were dramatically improved by it.

It was always believed that the earth was flat—so at the time the sun stood still they believed that to be the case.
That does not nullify the fact that the shadow stood still it was seen as the sun stood still—I thought that would be evident to you.

The other account when the shadow went back ten steps, it was considered that the sun went backwards.

YHVH who is the Creator would with ease change the orbit of the earth.

As children, we're taught to think of the Bible as the word of God, given to us in a holy and perfect form for our salvation. It's like a candy apple for your soul, full of salvation and divine rescues!

Most Christians never get past the candy coating, licking and nibbling the confection but never taking a good hearty bite. Some people DO take a hearty bite. I did. That's when I discovered the chocolate coating I'd been nibbling as a child concealed not an apple, but an onion.

I am flabbergasted since the immortal one who has God as a BFF has bothered to speak to a mere mortal like myself.

__________________08 JAN 2018 > Trump says that he is "Like, Really Smart" and that he is "a Very Stable Genius".
11 JAN 2018 > During an Oval Office meeting, Trump asks "“Why are we having all these people from ****hole countries come here?”"

Of all the possible sources for information on the heliocentric model of the solar system, you picked an anti-vax site where it is mentioned only in passing before moving on to another topic...

OooooK Then.

You've told us more about your research methodology than I think you intended. This does however explain how you managed to quote the same verse in different translations to try and make opposing points. Keyword searching is not the same thing as researching Paul.

I highly recommend you read The Craft of Research. Your local library most likely has a copy. While I found it to be largely review when I read it in college, I had a LOT of perfectly intelligent classmates who found it revolutionary and whose research skills were dramatically improved by it.

I thought it was a good choice—it was mentioned just in passing, as you say—but it was mentioned.
Why must I research a subject that you already know about –or did you---looks to me there is a lot of Googling going on here—nothing original, nothing personally discovered, only quotes from sources outside of your continuum of knowledge.

__________________Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.

Well considering he fabricated them and distributed them exactly where he wanted them to be and taking note of each one—then surely he can arrange for them to fall.

For your consideration----Gen_1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

Falling implies that the object is moving by force of gravity towards another object's surface. The force of gravity exerted by an object varies depending on its size and mass and the distance that it is from the object exerting the gravity.Stars are quite large, some are actually larger than our own sun and are quite far away from earth. In order for an object to fall to earth the earth must exert a greater gravitational force on it, then than that object exerts on the earth. In order for a star to fall to earth it would have to exert less gravitational force on the earth then the earth exerts on it, which would require:

A. That the star have less mass then the Earth;
B. Be close to earth, but not to any of the other celestial bodies in this solar system so that only earth's gravitational field affects it.

Given that stars are bigger than earth and have more mass, and are no where near earth, it isn't going to happen.

The stories made up by people with a Iron Age knowledge of astrophysics about celestial behaviour are of no value, any more than an uneducated child's.

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

It was always believed that the earth was flat...

I see. You do not intend, then, to address my questions, but intend instead to continue your dishonest equivocations.

Got it.

As usual, your unsupported assertion is wrong. By 600 BCE Greek Philosphers had begun to posit a spherical earth; by 300 BCE or so it was widely established as a given.

So much for "always believed". Your "infallible perfect understanding" is lying to you, again.

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

...so at the time the sun stood still...

Unsupported, physically impossible, assumption, quoted without evidence form a set of fairy tales.

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

... they believed that to be the case.

This seems to be an admission that you still believe that the sun goes 'round the earth. DO you remember saying that you "...believe as they believed"?

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

That does not nullify the fact that the shadow stood still it was seen as the sun stood still—I thought that would be evident to you.

Several things are evident.

1. You are continuing to equivocate in hopes of avoiding the question;
2. If the "observers" reported that the "sun stood still" or the "shadow went backwards", it could only be because they thought the sun went 'round the earth;
3. You are avoiding the question.

What is "evident" to me is that you intend to try to avoid the question, as you have not thought abut what would happen of the earth were jerked to a halt.

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

The other account when the shadow went back ten steps, it was considered that the sun went backwards.

I wonder why you are hiding in the passive voice. Trust me: I know that your fairy tale (the one you have bragged that you do not need to be able to read, to interpret it "infallibly", with "perfect understanding") says that the "sun stood still in the sky"; what I asked you was what physical processes, in your "perfect understanding", would have had to take place for that to seem to have happened, given that it is, in fact, the earth that rotates, and revolves around the sun, rather than vice-versa.

You have, not unexpectedly, chosen to ignore that question.

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

YHVH...

Why use "YHVH[sic]" here, instead of HASHEM[sic]" as before, or "Jehovah[sic]" as you have also done?

In other words, what drives your egregious and non-standard usage?

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

.. who is the Creator...

ANOTHER assertion, offered without the first skerrik of supporting evidence.

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

...would with ease change the orbit of the earth.

What, in your opinion, would changing the "orbit of the earth" do, as far as giving the illusion of the "sun standing still in the sky"? Why would your 'god' lie to his fawning worshipers? Why did they mis-report the event? Why do your "scriptures" report misapprehensions as holy "fact"?

How bathetic. Be so good as to explain where, in your opinion, I claimed to have discovered Google.

After you have done that, you might actually read the article you title-searched, and explain what the review of an article has to do with the issue you are avoiding...

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

Do not be surprised—be flabbergast!

Mr. Bethke:

Your "infallible, perfect understanding" is having continued problems dealing with actual English.

Praps you should check the batteries...

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

I thought it was a good choice—it was mentioned just in passing, as you say—but it was mentioned.
Why must I research a subject that you already know about –or did you---looks to me there is a lot of Googling going on here—nothing original, nothing personally discovered, only quotes from sources outside of your continuum of knowledge.

I think I get it.

You missed my entire post about ways I, personally, have seen evidence that the earth revolves, and rotates around the sun.

That, or you did not understand it (pace "infallible, perfect understanding").

How very odd, especially given that you are (by your own boast) utterly dependent upon others' interpretations of translations; and your entire schtick is based upon copy-pasta-ed ideas from someone else.

It's sweet that you think everyoneelse works that sloppily.

...and you STILL owe me an apology.

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Well considering he fabricated them and distributed them exactly where he wanted them to be and taking note of each one—then surely he can arrange for them to fall.

For your consideration----Gen_1:16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.

The greater light to govern the day IS a star, as we now know, though the authors of Genesis didn't.

Stars can't "fall". They're not "up there". And the Sun - a typical star - is 1.3 million times bigger than the Earth. The authors of Genesis didn't know that either. So how can stars "fall"? Can beachballs fall on to a pea? It is planets that "fall" round stars. The Earth falls round the Sun in one year.

Yeah but it's still fun to waste time and find the foibles in the character hes come up with.

__________________I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-

While that statement accurately reflects your own word salad "research" there has been an awful lot of original thought in this thread coming from people other than you. It is disingenuous and insulting to pretend that others are engaging the same type of haphazard, lazy keyword searching that you are.

While that statement accurately reflects your own word salad "research" there has been an awful lot of original thought in this thread coming from people other than you. It is disingenuous and insulting to pretend that others are engaging the same type of haphazard, lazy keyword searching that you are.

Original thought is that what you call it—it is a whole lot of Googling---nothing original, just quotes from different sources.

So now you are void of words so you comment on what salad I like.

__________________Luke 21:31---Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the Kingdom of God is near.

Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...

Posts: 17,348

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

Original thought is that what you call it—it is a whole lot of Googling---nothing original, just quotes from different sources.

So now you are void of words so you comment on what salad I like.

Your "infallible, perfect understanding" may need tuning...

You are still avoiding a raft of actual questions.

__________________"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

No Paul, original thought involves referring to multiple sources, understanding and considering the information gained therein, and the expressing the resulting synthesis in your own terms.

Quotes from different sources can be used to buttress your thoughts, but aren't strictly speaking necessary.

What Paul is demonstrating is the debate tactic that includes behaviors such as putting mocking air quotes around the word "experts" or responding to discussion of expert consensus on a topic with "Says who?"

When reality conflicts with opinion, people incapable of admitting they were wrong resort to attacking the use of expert opinions and research.

Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.

Posts: 1,985

Originally Posted by Paul Bethke

You want to see external evidence which at this time is on hold. But when that evidence is demonstrated then you may not want to repent, or may not be in a position to repent.

Extraordinary. You have just admitted that you want me to be damned to hell for all eternity. You will not show me the evidence that I, and any skeptic here, need to be convinced, until it is too late for me, or anyone else, to repent.

What possible justification can there be for this act of inhuman cruelty?